52 52
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

Okay, watched Nat Geo. Actually reconfigured stuff so I could run straight into my computer (I had a card with a tv tuner that I hadn't used but managed to get it going..cool)

So I have a copy for my own personal use :)

In summary:

Tom Kaye, lead of the citizen scientist team, determined that Cooper jumped and landed in the Lewis River. He died on the water landing, then both body and money went downstream to the Columbia, where one or both got snagged on the propeller of a boat going upstream. This brought the money against the current to the area of Tina Bar. The bag etc, came apart at that time, and deposited the money at Tina Bar.

The deposit at Tina Bar happened shortly after the jump. Tom has determined this somehow.

Larry Carr has other knowledge that says, based on Cooper's actions, that he was not an experienced jumper. Larry is looking for someone to find Dan Cooper comic books in the attic belonging to an uncle who died or disappeared in 1971.

Oh, Larry's comment about a note with instructions going with the parachute, and Cooper saying "I don't need that" or something like that, was repeated in the film. So must have happened.

Although the Tosaw (or who was it) account of Cooper showing he could detonate the bomb by touching two wires, was repeated too. I suppose Carr approved that, so I guess we can assume that the two wire detonation demonstration happened? Don't know.

Good work!

(edit) Finally. I've achieved my two goals. I have the most posts on this thread, more than Jo, and now: I have the last post. Good to be me!

(edit) I'm not sure what science Tom used that was "new forensic science" compared to the last 38 years. But Tom definitely has a lot of shit in his garage. And he's an old guy that talks assertively, and has a beard, and glasses. I got that much. The number crunching wasn't released.

(edit) Geoffery Gray was on. He's a lot younger than I thought. Younger than Generation Kill I think.

(edit) Cossey was on, but they didn't show his real name. Just "Coss" I believe it was.

(edit) They mentioned Perris when they talked about the recreated jump. I posted the name of the jumper and location before, from a blog. I forget if that blog said Perris also.
I wasn't sure if it was Perris, because I didn't see any naked women.

(edit) Christiansen was the big suspect they explored, for like 2 minutes. Larry didn't like Christiansen though. No comic books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was unable to watch, no cable/sat TV at my place. I'd like to see a few post show synopses and critiques posted here. How was it?

377



I've just returned from watching the NG docu with the Formans and a ton o' their family.

I was stunned by the abandonment of the Washougal theory by Ckret, Kaye and the powers that be, and replaced by the propeller theory. (When did they give up on the Washougal? Poor Jerry!)

When the docu presented Kaye's theory of a transport of both DB Cooper's body and the money satchel three miles upstream from the confluence of the Lewis-Columbia Rivers up to Tena's Bar - bound up in a freighter's propeller - the room erupted in laughter and hoots.

I kept hearing Georger's voice in my head -"Where's the proof!!! (Yes, I heard you G, but I guess you need to shout a little louder to reach Seattle - I'm 61 miles south).

The voice-over said that Cooper landed directly in the water, and claimed the Lewis River is 300 feet wide, which will surprise many fishermenwho can tangle their lines easily with guys on the opposite shore. They surmised that Cooper drowned or died of the cold, and inferred that the Lewis is big enough to swallow up a body and a 28-foot chute.

I also heard new claims:

1. Kaye says that Tena's Bar was not a site for spoils from the 1974 dredging, that the Bar was located just outside the dredge zone. No proof given, but he was shown stretching out a lot of tape measures, with Larry and the Babe from Chicago standing around. Hence, the position of the dredge-sediment layers are not relevant. That's what I heard, and I don't claim to understand their logic or reasoning.

2. Kaye was featured in the docu. Had as much air time as Ckret. Pictured examining the tie with a high-powered microscope. Said he had found pollen spores but did not reveal any information about them. No discussion about soil or mineral traces, or diatoms.

3. Docu said that 305 was being flown by autopilot and that's how the FBI knows where the plane was - flying directly on its prescribed flight plan course.

4. Although Ron and Pat Forman were not in the movie, half their family was. Several of the actors staged in the re-enactments at Tena’s Bar were Forman people. That impressed me because it indicates Edge West really did spend a lot of time with the Formans, more than I had known, and I covered shoots in several different locations - all suggesting they really liked the Barb Dayton story line.


5. I was in the movie, too! Brief scene from the Ariel Tavern. I’m the guy who was seriously intense and maybe a little smashed (yes) and was saying “BD Cooper was one tough-assed dude.” I had been interviewing the Edge West team and they were buying, so we kept drinking and before I knew it they had a friggin’ camera in my face. Well, the rest is cinematic history…


6. The docu discussed Christenson, but not Duane, and certainly not Gossett. Galen told me last week that the Edge West guys really hounded him to tell his story, but he refused. The docu also discussed Richard McCoy and how the FBI thought for a time that Danny and Dick were one and the same.


7. Himm was quoted as saying DB was a just an old con with a foul mouth, but the voice-over said that “there is little supporting evidence from eye-witnesses to support that claim.” Quite a slap, I thought, to the Keeper of the DB Cooper Official Story.

8. The docu moved briskly for the first 40 minutes and then bogged down. It really dragged for the 40-50 minute segment. I sensed they really had to scramble at the last minute pulling the Dayton stuff out, dumping any Washougal info, and quickly adding the splash down in the Lewis LZ, which had a re-enactment scene to back it up visually.

9. They showed a re-enactment of the jump. Daylight, though, from Perris, California, which I now know about thanks to you guys here on the DZ. I was impressed that the shades stayed on the guy’s face. I didn’t see the loafers fly off either. I looked closely at the flapping money bag, and I really appreciated how much bouncing around it did. It was definitely not stable. They showed the satchel tied in front of the groin or lower tummy, and appeared attached to the rig. Larry, in his video on the FBI site, says Coop made a rope handle and clutched the bag. I guess NG didn’t believe Ckret on this one and he let it go.

The parachutist also did a lot of tumbling and rolling to simulate Larry's theory of Coop spinning out of control and panicking. The guy said the NB-8 did a fine job of deploying despite the spins.

Again, I took it all to be a little dig at Ckret's pet theory of a bumbling Danny Boy losing it on the way down.

There’s probably more, but that’s what I remember at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WTF? I thought we were done.

Okay, I'm researching propellors. What size ship do you think snagged Cooper and/or the money bag? What speed would the prop be at, and are we talking clockwise or counterclockwise rotation?

I'm wondering how often crap gets transported by propeller in the columbia. It must be fairly often? So it must still be happening?

I wonder if Tom could do an experiment where he throws a dead body or money bag into the Columbia, and tries to snag it on a propeller?

Is there a place where you can get cadavers? We'd have to send the body down the Lewis first, but I think access to water is open, i.e. no private property issue, so it should be okay to run the experiment.

Looks like things are coming together. I love it when a plan comes together.

(edit) Brucie: didn't you pay attention? 305 was flying on autopilot and followed V-23. Obviously Washougal wouldn't make sense. I guess the autopilot information is new and should be added to the database.

(edit) 377 is a self-admitted trollman. I'm sure he can corroborate the propeller transport resolution of the case. Maybe he provided expert witness on this?

(edit) Orange1 is hotter than "the Babe from Chicago"

(edit) snipped a frame from the documenary: team of scientists investigating propellers.

(edit) I don't believe the re-enactment guy jumped with a NB-8..just fyi. In fact some of the canopy flight was cropped so you couldn't see the canopy... but you could see he had a modern square canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Was unable to watch, no cable/sat TV at my place. I'd like to see a few post show synopses and critiques posted here. How was it?

377



I've just returned from watching the NG docu with the Formans and a ton o' their family.

I was stunned by the abandonment of the Washougal theory by Ckret, Kaye and the powers that be, and replaced by the propeller theory. (When did they give up on the Washougal? Poor Jerry!)

When the docu presented Kaye's theory of a transport of both DB Cooper's body and the money satchel three miles upstream from the confluence of the Lewis-Columbia Rivers up to Tena's Bar - bound up in a freighter's propeller - the room erupted in laughter and hoots.

I kept hearing Georger's voice in my head -"Where's the proof!!! (Yes, I heard you G, but I guess you need to shout a little louder to reach Seattle - I'm 61 miles south).

The voice-over said that Cooper landed directly in the water, and claimed the Lewis River is 300 feet wide, which will surprise many fishermenwho can tangle their lines easily with guys on the opposite shore. They surmised that Cooper drowned or died of the cold, and inferred that the Lewis is big enough to swallow up a body and a 28-foot chute.

I also heard new claims:

1. Kaye says that Tena's Bar was not a site for spoils from the 1974 dredging, that the Bar was located just outside the dredge zone. No proof given, but he was shown stretching out a lot of tape measures, with Larry and the Babe from Chicago standing around. Hence, the position of the dredge-sediment layers are not relevant. That's what I heard, and I don't claim to understand their logic or reasoning.

2. Kaye was featured in the docu. Had as much air time as Ckret. Pictured examining the tie with a high-powered microscope. Said he had found pollen spores but did not reveal any information about them. No discussion about soil or mineral traces, or diatoms.

3. Docu said that 305 was being flown by autopilot and that's how the FBI knows where the plane was - flying directly on its prescribed flight plan course.

4. Although Ron and Pat Forman were not in the movie, half their family was. Several of the actors staged in the re-enactments at Tena’s Bar were Forman people. That impressed me because it indicates Edge West really did spend a lot of time with the Formans, more than I had known, and I covered shoots in several different locations - all suggesting they really liked the Barb Dayton story line.


5. I was in the movie, too! Brief scene from the Ariel Tavern. I’m the guy who was seriously intense and maybe a little smashed (yes) and was saying “BD Cooper was one tough-assed dude.” I had been interviewing the Edge West team and they were buying, so we kept drinking and before I knew it they had a friggin’ camera in my face. Well, the rest is cinematic history…


6. The docu discussed Christenson, but not Duane, and certainly not Gossett. Galen told me last week that the Edge West guys really hounded him to tell his story, but he refused. The docu also discussed Richard McCoy and how the FBI thought for a time that Danny and Dick were one and the same.


7. Himm was quoted as saying DB was a just an old con with a foul mouth, but the voice-over said that “there is little supporting evidence from eye-witnesses to support that claim.” Quite a slap, I thought, to the Keeper of the DB Cooper Official Story.

8. The docu moved briskly for the first 40 minutes and then bogged down. It really dragged for the 40-50 minute segment. I sensed they really had to scramble at the last minute pulling the Dayton stuff out, dumping any Washougal info, and quickly adding the splash down in the Lewis LZ, which had a re-enactment scene to back it up visually.

9. They showed a re-enactment of the jump. Daylight, though, from Perris, California, which I now know about thanks to you guys here on the DZ. I was impressed that the shades stayed on the guy’s face. I didn’t see the loafers fly off either. I looked closely at the flapping money bag, and I really appreciated how much bouncing around it did. It was definitely not stable. They showed the satchel tied in front of the groin or lower tummy, and appeared attached to the rig. Larry, in his video on the FBI site, says Coop made a rope handle and clutched the bag. I guess NG didn’t believe Ckret on this one and he let it go.

The parachutist also did a lot of tumbling and rolling to simulate Larry's theory of Coop spinning out of control and panicking. The guy said the NB-8 did a fine job of deploying despite the spins.

Again, I took it all to be a little dig at Ckret's pet theory of a bumbling Danny Boy losing it on the way down.

There’s probably more, but that’s what I remember at the moment.



good report.

Let's let Snowboy botch it up from here on. I see
he's already hosing the grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's really not much interesting.

1) I think I got the Cousin Brucie snap right, from his description of saying "bad ass"

2) jump reenactment for 377

3) gizmo thing outside Tom Kaye's house

4) Earl Cossey, wearing a NB-8

5) closer view of Cossey

6) Geoffrey Gray (the writer guy)..Unmasking D.B. Cooper is the name of the 2007 NY Mag article on Christiansen. Is Gray writing some more?

7) Showing Perris logo on bottom of reenactment plane

8) Name the rig Troy is using? (visible logo)

9) Troy Hartman was the pro jumper that re-enacted?

10) Troy showing off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) The obligatory hero shot, with the sun background (TomK)
Always thinking, watching, waiting.

2) Picture of big boats. I don't know if this is a recent or historical shot of boats on the Columbia or what.

A lot of other stuff you've already seen equivalent snaps of, here on the thread.

3) Watch out Troy, Close!

4) Busted! Troy flying square canopy. Cropping ain't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m late for work, so I have to be brief:

I would like to remind everyone that Edge West and Phil Day were the producers and director of that film (anachronistic term). They were solely responsible for its content.

Larry Carr, Tom Kaye, Geoff Grey, Himmelsbach, Cossey, Troy Hartman, and others shown in the film had no more “creative input” than Cousin Brucie did.

As George Bush would say, in other words, just because it was in the film doesn’t mean it is a fact and we should be updating our database. It is apparent to me, in some cases, entertainment value won out over factual value.

As I have hinted at before, the original storyboard was considerable different from the final product. Bruce is right, the film was significantly re-edited, but not because of the Barb Dayton info.

I think the film was of higher quality than others I have seen. But… I was very disappointed with the fictionalization of the end product. Probably 10 times as much video (as was shown) ended up on the cutting room floor. Much of it “factual.”

This whole experience has made me understand why I am not a film-maker, my nervous system could not take it.


Blatently Off-Topic:

I watched Sarah Pallen's "farwell speech" and was reminded of this:

What is the difference between Sarah Pallen and the Panama Canal?

The Panama Canal is a very busy ditch!

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1) The obligatory hero shot, with the sun background (TomK)
Always thinking, watching, waiting.

2) Picture of big boats. I don't know if this is a recent or historical shot of boats on the Columbia or what.

A lot of other stuff you've already seen equivalent snaps of, here on the thread.

3) Watch out Troy, Close!

4) Busted! Troy flying square canopy. Cropping ain't enough.



Actually I think that it is realy poor to use completely "modern" equipment. Surely National Geo could get their hands on a modern military round at least? For what their jump is worth they should have just used footage from the lingerie jumps:)
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to remind everything that I was involved in the Nat Geo production, and the script was dictated by Larry Carr, and represents the best information from the FBI and the Citizen's Investigative Group.

Now can we ignore all the distractions and get down to some real work? Where are we on propellers, 1971 era?

(edit) I would note that I had originally proposed the idea that the money travelled from a dredge used on the Columbia near the Lewis, to Tina Bar, so I finally feel vindicated.

(edit) In aisle 3A of my files, I have the database on prop dredging (using a propeller on a boat to stir up the bottom..illegal in most areas)...I think it may yield some insight, although I have to get Tom to crunch the numbers for me, probability-wise.

(edit) How was Cooper able to find the Lewis River?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem: The blog I quoted, that named the "Key Production Assistant", had said Cooper landed in the Columbia directly. I was surprised the movie didn't square with what the Jeff Darnell had blogged for Nat Geo, just 2 days before the broadcast.

here's the blog entry, posted July 25,2009
http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/inside-ngc/2009/07/the-infamous-db-cooper.html


Currently the FBI has the help of a team of scientists who are going through the evidence in detail- recalculating the drop zone, analyzing the money. They are finding that the drop zone may have very well been directly over the Columbia River, D. B. Cooper disappeared, yes, he may have been washed out to sea.


Although I can't tell, I think Jeff Darnell posted text from Katie Greenfield, Key Production Assistant for Edge West Production Company.

Hmm. We need a covert op with Katie. I don't have her picture, so someone will have to take their chances. Obviously she would be most impressed with a jumper. Let's go with male to start with. Who's going in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would like to remind everything that I was involved in the Nat Geo production, and the script was dictated by Larry Carr, and represents the best information from the FBI and the Citizen's Investigative Group.



Not true. Your ego and your raised leg were nowhere in sight.

But thanks! for your contributions to Cooperphaelia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I’m late for work, so I have to be brief:

I would like to remind everyone that Edge West and Phil Day were the producers and director of that film (anachronistic term). They were solely responsible for its content.

Larry Carr, Tom Kaye, Geoff Grey, Himmelsbach, Cossey, Troy Hartman, and others shown in the film had no more “creative input” than Cousin Brucie did.

As George Bush would say, in other words, just because it was in the film doesn’t mean it is a fact and we should be updating our database. It is apparent to me, in some cases, entertainment value won out over factual value.

As I have hinted at before, the original storyboard was considerable different from the final product. Bruce is right, the film was significantly re-edited, but not because of the Barb Dayton info.

I think the film was of higher quality than others I have seen. But… I was very disappointed with the fictionalization of the end product. Probably 10 times as much video (as was shown) ended up on the cutting room floor. Much of it “factual.”

This whole experience has made me understand why I am not a film-maker, my nervous system could not take it.


Blatently Off-Topic:

I watched Sarah Pallen's "farwell speech" and was reminded of this:

What is the difference between Sarah Pallen and the Panama Canal?

The Panama Canal is a very busy ditch!




I wont comment on substance until Tom Kaye has
had a chance to come here and comment,explain.
etc. Not sure he has plans to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I would like to remind everything that I was involved in the Nat Geo production, and the script was dictated by Larry Carr, and represents the best information from the FBI and the Citizen's Investigative Group.



Not true. Your ego and your raised leg were nowhere in sight.

But thanks! for your contributions to Cooperphaelia.



?? WTF?
Then someone is lying to me.
I'm not sure who is lying, you or someone else.
No matter, I'll get to the bottom of it.
I do have a check for consult fees, so I assumed I was working on the project. Maybe I wasn't. Did anyone else get a check?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I would like to remind everything that I was involved in the Nat Geo production, and the script was dictated by Larry Carr, and represents the best information from the FBI and the Citizen's Investigative Group.



Not true. Your ego and your raised leg were nowhere in sight.

But thanks! for your contributions to Cooperphaelia.



?? WTF?
Then someone is lying to me.
I'm not sure who is lying, you or someone else.
No matter, I'll get to the bottom of it.
I do have a check for consult fees, so I assumed I was working on the project. Maybe I wasn't. Did anyone else get a check?



News to me if true.

What is also true is the Lewis River - Washback theory is an old theory. Was originally advanced by H and
was fully addressed. It requires: ________________.

So much for "consultants"!

Isn't is strange how everything always comes back
to core sampling at Tina Bar - which nobody did.
We dont need any "stinkin core samples"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The upstream propeller snag transport explanation is actually humorous. What do they call this in literature? "Deus ex machina"? This FBI explanation is really a classic use of the technique.

"A deus ex machina means (literally "god from the machine") is a plot device in which a person or thing appears "out of the blue" to help a character to overcome a seemingly insolvable difficulty."

I and every commercial fisherman has had too much experience with propeller snags. One of the most frightening things I have ever done was to free dive (no tanks no nothing) 300 miles offshore with a knife trying to cut a snagged and wrapped up illegal Chinese drift net off the prop of our vessel. It had wrapped up so tight that it stalled a very powerful diesel and put an immovable brake on the propshaft. It was exhausting, cold and scary. It is very easy to get snagged in what you are trying to cut, plus the heaving motion of the vessel compunds the problem. We hosed the bloody decks off really well then waited for a few hours hoping if sharks were nearby (and they almost always are) the scent would dissipate. It took hours of repeated dives but I finally got us going. Most boats today carry hookah rigs so you can have a continuous air supply. Back then the huge (some were 30 miles long) drift nets were new on the scene and we didnt realize how big a problem they would cause. The pirate drift netters would cut out big chunks of ripped net and just discard them creating big snag hazards but they didnt care. Those kind of drift nets are illegal worldwide but the Chinese still use them on phony flagged and named vessels.

http://reliableanswers.com/general/driftnet_fishing.asp

Commercial boats snag stuff a lot, mostly things that are floating like polyester ropes. If an item is on the bottom or even a few feet under your keel you usually will not snag it if you are moving. The dwell time near the potential snag is too short to suck it into the prop when you are moving. Maneuvering (eg docking with a lot of fwd and reverse motion in a small area) in shallow water you can suck snags off the bottom and foul your prop.

Interestingly most complex "ropey" things that you snag end up retained in a mess between your foreward prop hub and the prop shaft even if you break free of the rest of it. Boats install "spurs" to aid in staying free of snags and avoiding shaft wraps
of leftover junk. Big ships usually dont use spurs and depend instead on their massive HP to cut through anything they encounter.

I doubt if Cooper would be floating after a river landing and drowning. I know that C9 type chutes sink because we use them as sea anchors and have to install a float attached to a line that ties onto the apex.

The prop snag transport theory sounds absurd to me. If Cooper was snagged it would be very brief before the blades cut him loose and centrifugal force flung him clear of the vessel. I just dont see a plausible scenario where he is transported miles up stream. Dredge transport (of the money) makes more sense to me than prop snag transport

Prop speeds and sizes vary wildly. Prop speeds on big freighters are quite slow, 150 RPM is typical at cruise speed.

This "spurs" website tells you something about prop snags. It has many animated videos in different parts of the website. Take a look at all of them and you will get a feel for the mechanics of prop snags.

http://www.spursmarine.com/ship_main.htm

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Okay, I'm researching propellors. What size ship do you think snagged Cooper and/or the money bag? What speed would the prop be at, and are we talking clockwise or counterclockwise rotation?



Typical prop shaft speed on a typical ocean freighter would be 100-170 RPM, clockwise is normal rotation for fwd thrust, but a few are counterclockwise.

Suicide jumpers from the Golden Gate bridge often float for a while after impact. Cooper had a bit of extra weight with the chute, whether deployed or packed. I think he would sink if he drowned in the river, but thats just a guess.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

4) Busted! Troy flying square canopy. Cropping ain't enough.



Good job on the video bust Snow. Nailed him cold! PONED.

Why was Troy wearing a chest reserve???

Wimps. They could have easily found a round a jumpable round.

If Georger uses "Snowboy" again point him to Boy George's bio. ;)


377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377 said
Quote

The upstream propeller snag transport explanation is actually humorous. What do they call this in literature? "Deus ex machina"? This FBI explanation is really a classic use of the technique.



It seems like I start a lot of my post with; “I can’t speak for [fill in the blank] but, blah, blah, blah. So, some of you may be tired of hearing it, but that’s just the way it is. It seems to me the same people (posters) who are so logical when it comes to discussing the minutia and arcane details of NORJAK have their brains run down into their shoes when discussing “the NORJAK community" and its members. They hear, see, read something and then apply that information in a very broad way.

Contrary to snowmman’s assertions, Ckret and I don’t hang out at the bar discussing NORJAK (we are a bit far apart for that). But, I do occasionally communicate with him. I’m usually begging for some scrap of information that I want (need) to enable me to solve the case before lunch.

Likewise, I occasionally communicate with Tom Kaye. We don’t hang out in bars either. Usually I’m getting help from him in completing my Beaver Patrol Paleontology Merit Badge.

To my knowledge Ckret and Tom almost never communicate. Not that they don’t like each other, they just each have their own commitments.

My point? My point is your reference to an “FBI explanation” doesn’t compute. The up-river-transport-by-boat theory isn’t the FBI’s, it isn’t Ckret’s, and I may not even be Tom’s. My best guess is that Tom was asked to speculate about some kind of example of how the money could have been transported up-river and his response was edited to make it look like it was the predominate theory.

Here’s an example:

Reporter: Mr. Sluggo, could the radiation exposures to the residents of Pleasantville as a result of the melt-down of the Pleasant River Nuclear Station have caused them serious health problems?

Sluggo: Some believe that a few hundred millirem will kill 50% of the population, but that just isn’t true. The exposures at Pleasantville weren’t enough to cause any biological effects.

The final edit as broadcast: We asked noted health physicist Mr. Sluggo Marinelli what effects the radiation from the Pleasant River Nuclear Station might have had on the residents of Pleasantville, here is his response: [Mr. Sluggo’s Voice on a sound byte] A few hundred millirem will kill 50% of the population.

Get the point. [Note:] This is based on a real incident in Sluggo’s life.

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sluggo said: "...have their brains run down into their shoes when discussing “the NORJAK community" and its members"

I thought the problem was different.
I thought the issue was, for instance, in my case, that I don't give a damn about anyone else, and others thought that was inappropriate behavior.

Am I misunderstanding?

The way stuff like that gets resolved, usually, is war, etc. Are you arguing for diplomatic solutions?

(edit) As long as we're all confessing, I'll own up. The propeller theory came from me. They needed a last minute "new" theory, and I said I could give them one if they paid up. They paid up. They got a theory. Everyone was happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No prob Sluggo. If it isnt the FBI's opinion, fine, I stand corrected. Whoever expressed the propeller snag upriver transport explanation is employing a deus ex machina. It may have been the show writers who reached this unlikely conclusion.

I do hope the program reaches folks who might know something relevant but didn't even know it until they saw the show. You never know.

Jo hints of vast dirty govt. dirty laundry conspiracies but offers no evidence, just anguish. Conservative patriot Jo sounds like she is reversing course and expressing complete disgust over our governments practices amd policies. Post it Jo. Air it out. Let some sun shine on that dark stuff.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Contrary to snowmman’s assertions, Ckret and I don’t hang out at the bar discussing NORJAK (we are a bit far apart for that). But, I do occasionally communicate with him. I’m usually begging for some scrap of information that I want (need) to enable me to solve the case before lunch.



I too have solved the case before lunch, many times.
Like Chinese food, it doesnt stick to the ribs and by evening I hunger for a new solution.

Was there a butler anywhere? I think the butler did it. That's as good a guess as any I have made.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377 said: "Conservative patriot Jo sounds like she is reversing course and expressing complete disgust "

remember when I said I had a personal goal of "turning" Jerry. That's the real benchmark :)

I work thru the list, seeing what gets them excited

first
-we're smarter

second
-we have God on our side

third
-we have nukes!

fourth
-The propeller theory is ours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not see the program and from what I am reading here I don't even think I want to do so.

Where in the H--- did they come up with the AUTO-pilot thing? CHRET SHOW US THE PROOF.Isn't that what you always replied to me.

Where did they come up with the propellor thing? Again show me the proof.

Cook declined. They didn't use me because I REFUSED to disrupt my life by appearing on camera again...I was adamant about that. Somewhere in all of this mess is the email she sent me in response. I offered to help by providing any information I might be able to share - but they never did ask.

Would have been old news and the FBI wants Weber forgotten the way Coffelt was forgotten. Those that be are waiting for everyone to die off willing to fight those battles. I promise you "they" won't win even if I die....all of the wheels are on and the motor tuned and ready to go.

The truth will go forward - the past does NOT stay hidden forever. "They" forgot about the innocent individuals who became victims. "They" can erase records - like McNeil and Jefferson (but I had one up on McNeil). "They" can destroy all the records they want - but somehow something always survives.

Why not do a program on Cooper that DEMANDS the same proof the FBI demands of anyone presenting a suspect?

TO EVERYONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THAT PRODUCTION:

NOW you know why I decline all TV offers and have used the thread as a means to get things out. At least with the written word you can make a rebuttal, but when the TV programs do their editing it usually doesn't resemble the truth. Sometimes the fim editor doesn't have a real grasp on the crime or story.

Last but not least the forces that be could have their hand right in the middle dictating what cannot be use as the results would be a threat to our National Security. There are organizations who want to make COOPER disappear...They have to make Cooper fade off into the sunset.

Obviously I am still upset about the "other" information we have and cannot talk about it. I will reserve my final word on it after I have seen the program. Hopefully one of the individuals I requested record it - did so and will mail me a copy.

I think it is time for a movie or documentary for 2 hrs that focuses on "suspects" - with the individuals providing information involved in the editing. Cook, Grey, Weber, Waugh - any suspect and someone who is stating the "evidence". NO proof unless the individual wants to use proof to state their case. Each suspect will be given equal time with a summary presented on all of the suspects at the end of the program. Dare they let the audience vote on who they think Cooper was or to choose Died.

I believe even Cook would go for this one - I know I would.

Another alternative is a story that brings the regular contributors of this thread together - and the different theories - good and bad - that have resulted here. At least they would have the knowledge of pilots and jumper, but NO "they" want all the old jumpers to have died off so "they" can convince the world Cooper died.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering if I'm a "clear and present danger".

I looked on wikipedia, but I still can't figure it out. How does one know? Do you not know until "Bad Boys" song plays and they drag you out with no shirt on?

(edit) Oh: and if they Taser you, can you fire a Taser back in self-defense? Or is self-defense not allowed in that case. I mean if they're trying to kill you (and people do die) I would think you're allowed to try to stop that. No? or Yes?

Is there a bullet-proof vest equivalent for Tasers? What can you wear to protect yourself against Tasers?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

"Clear and present danger is a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States,[1] concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:
“ The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. ”

Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[2][3] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was later modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[4] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an imminent lawless action.

The vast majority of legal scholars have concluded that in writing the Schenck opinion Justice Holmes never meant to replace the "bad tendency" test which had been established in the 1868 English case R. v. Hicklin and incorporated into American jurisprudence in the 1904 Supreme Court case U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams. This is demonstrated by the use of the word "tendency" in Schenck itself, a paragraph in Schenck explaining that the success of speech in causing the actual harm was not a prerequisite for conviction, and use of the bad-tendency test in the simultaneous Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States decisions (both of which cite Schenck without using the words "clear and present danger").

However, a subsequent essay by Zechariah Chafee entitled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” argued despite context that Holmes had intended to substitute clear and present danger for the bad-tendency standard a more protective standard of free speech.[5] Bad tendency was a far more ambiguous standard where speech could be punished even in the absence of identifiable danger, and as such was strongly opposed by the fledgling ACLU and other libertarians of the time.

Having read Chafee's article, Holmes decided to retroactively reinterpret what he had meant by "clear and present danger" and accepted Chafee's characterization of the new test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States just six months after Schenck,[6] perhaps the only time in history where a single legal scholar changed the course of jurisprudence. Significantly unlike Abrams, the cases of Schenck, Frohwerk, and Debs had all produced unanimous decisions. Justice Brandeis soon began citing the "clear and present danger" test in his concurrences, but the new standard was not accepted by the full court until its official adoption in Brandenburg v. Ohio fifty years later."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

52 52